THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN PUBLIC EDUCATION:
LEGISLATION AND FUNDING FOR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH
SPECIAL NEEDS
In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) was passed by
Congress. ESEA was the center of President
Johnson’s War on Poverty and was
influenced by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The children who were covered by ESEA in
1965 included those who were disabled and
covered by an amendment to the original
ESEA (Title IV – Aid to handicapped
children).
Within the next decade, the education of
disabled children was funded by a separate
law: the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act of 1975 (EAHCA). Over a 35year span, the law was reauthorized and
became the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), the latest of which
was reauthorized in 2004 and called the
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEIA). The upcoming
reauthorization of ESEA will also influence
how IDEIA is administered and practiced.
IDEIA has four sections that cover the Free
and Appropriate Education (FAPE) of 6.6
million disabled children who are age 0-21.

Part A (General Provisions)

Part B (Assistance for Education of All
Children with Disabilities)

Part C (Infants and Toddlers with
Disabilities)

Part D (National Activities to Improve
Education of Children with Disabilities)
Mandates in Special Education Funding
Funding requires adherence to the federal
mandates. The most important mandate is
the zero-reject policy, under which no child
is turned away from educational services. To
qualify for special education service, a
student must be classified with one (or
more) of 13 disabilities now covered by
IDEIA. The definition of “a child with a
disability” is found in the United States
Code, Title 29 1401(3) (A):
3) The term ‘child with a disability’
means a child— (i) with mental
retardation, hearing impairments
(including deafness), speech or
language
impairments,
visual
impairments (including blindness),
serious
emotional
disturbance
(referred to in this chapter as
“emotional
disturbance”),
orthopedic impairments, autism,
traumatic brain injury, other health
impairments, or specific learning
disabilities; and (ii) Who, by reason
thereof, needs special education and
related services.
The federal government demands that
states submit plans for the distribution of
monies to local agencies for direct
instructional programming that adhere to
federal mandates. Under each state’s
laws, an Individualized Educational
Program (IEP) is constructed for each
child receiving services. The purpose of
an IEP is to assure the student of a FAPE,
as ensured by law. The child is to be
placed
in
the
Least
Restrictive
Environment (LRE) for education.
In order to qualify for federal funds, state
and local agencies are bound to federal
guidelines to specify identification
procedures and the placement of disabled
children. State grant applications for
federal funds must include a plan for
distribution of the funds to local
education agencies (LEAs), as well as
sufficient time for the general public to
review and comment on the state plan.
LEAs receive allotments from the state for
their district special education needs. The
shortfall in funding then needs to be
addressed by the local education
agencies.
CURRENT FUNDING CHALLENGES
Federal Underfunding: The Education for
All Handicapped Children Act (1975)
included legislation for funding local
programs through state distribution of 40
percent of the cost. “Full funding” (40
percent) has never happened; the actual
amount has varied. There were federal funds
covering from 8 to 10 percent of the cost to
states ten years ago, according to
Katsiyannis, et al. (2001). The FY 2012 U.S.
Department of Education Budget lists 17
percent as the current figure, with an
estimated $1,765 cost per pupil. The
allotment has increased 1.7 percent in the
FY 2012.
Increasing enrollment: Special education
enrollment has grown, from 3.8 million in
1973 to 6.6 million in 2011. Federal special
education support increases for FY 2012 are
held at 1.7 percent over FY 2011.
Maintenance of effort: Because of severe
financial straits, more states are applying for
waivers to the spending requirement by the
federal government for special education
funding. The waiver, called a Maintenance
of Effort (MOE) has not been easily
obtained and involves holding a spending
pattern based on the previous year. Waivers
were given to Iowa, West Virginia, and
Kansas last year; waivers are pending for
New Jersey, South Carolina and Alabama
(Shah, 2011).
Inclusion and training: Currently, ninetyfive percent of disabled children are
educated in inclusive classrooms, the rest
being educated in separate classes,
institutions or at home. An increase in
inclusion practices is a strong possibility for
fund-strapped districts (Shah, 2011). The
balancing act – attention to finances, while
providing for children’s needs – continues to
be precarious, and it is also critical to
provide teachers with quality in-service
training.
References
Katsiyannis, A., Yell, M. & Bradley, R. (2001).
Reflections on the 25th anniversary of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. Remedial and
Special Education, Vol.22, (6), 324-34.
Shah, N. (2011, February 14). States expected to seek
special education funding waivers. Education Week.
Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/
2011/02/09/20speced.h30.html
U.S. Department of Education. Fiscal Year 2012
Budget Overview. Supporting Individuals with
Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/
about/overview/budget/budget12/summary/edlitesection2b.html
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics.
Chapter 2, Table 45. Children 3 to 21 years served
under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
Part B, by type of disability: Selected years, 1976
through 2008-09. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/
programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_045.asp?referrer=lis
t
U.S. Department of Education (2004). Retrieved
from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/
idea2004.html.
Special Education Legislation Milestones
DECADE
1950
CASE/LEGISLATION
1954: Brown v. Board of Education
1960
Bureau
of
Handicapped
Created.
1970
Education
1965: Elementary and Secondary Amendment to original ESEA Title IV – Aid to
Education Act became law.
handicapped children.
1972: PARC v
Ruled: Disabled have equal rights.
Pennsylvania and
Mills v. Board of Education
1973:
Section
504
of
Rehabilitation Act became law.
1980
1990
2000
RESULT
Paved the way for special needs children to
receive better education, but at this time
children were still denied an education based
on their disability.
for No funding for handicapped under federal or
state law.
the Protected
disabled
individuals
discrimination due to disability.
from
1974: Family Educational Rights and Parents gained access to all information
Privacy Act (FERPA) became law.
maintained by a school district on their
students.
1975: Education for All Handicapped
Children Act (EAHCA) became law, Free appropriate public education for all
handicapped students.
1986: Addition of Handicapped Mandated that all school students and parents
Children’s Protection Act
to have rights under both Section 504 and
EAHCA.
EAHCA.
1990: EAHCA amended and called IDEA reauthorized. Additions include students
Individuals
with
Education to be included in state and national
Disabilities Act (IDEA).
assessments, inclusion (Least Restrictive
Environment, LRE). Regular classroom
1996: I DEA reauthorized.
teachers now required to take part in an
Individual Education Plan (IEP) team.
2001: No Child Left Behind became Accountability at state and local levels
the title of the Elementary and required. School districts are required to
Secondary Education Act.
provide more instruction and interventions to
help prevent enrollment in special education.
2004: Reauthorization of IDEA (P.L. Response to Intervention (RTI) gains
101-476) now called IDEIA.
momentum as a screening tool. Students are
expected to take responsibility for their
behavior and are subject to the same rules as
the rest of the students.
Produced by the LWVUS The Education Study: The Role of the Federal Government in Public Education
© 2011 by the League of Women Voters of the United States